I think most of your post goes around the fact that the license "limits the freedom of others"
Others that want free software in their proprietary. That actually makes me feel like when fascists asks for tolerance.
Tolerance required intolerance to the intolerance. I feel kind of the same with free software. And as other people stated. It was totally needed for open source to be a thing.
I think the person that publish its software under the GPL license doesn't want a company using their code and keeping it for themselves. It's so much better if a developer can use it, make it better and keep sharing it and continuing...
But that's my 2 cents.
Communism is more like being at the bottom of the pit, and forcing everyone to stay down there just because you don't wanna be left behind by those who manage to climb.
Yeah like in capitalism we have a bunch of people climbing with only 1% of people having most of the money in the world :P
1- "Open Source" is just a market term that is promoted and funded by corporations to erase the historic and avant-garde importance of free software movement, which consists the permissive licenses that this person claims to be different.
2- Freedom that limits the freedom isn't freedom. Opening your software for proprietary usage does that. Its like having the freedom of slavery.
3- You lack basic info regarding Marxism. Communism doesn't have anything to do "being at the bottom of the pit". That is a meaningless bs mostly said by people like Thatcher and Reagan, politicians famous for austerity, corruption and economic crisis afterwards. Communism is the name of stateless, classless, moneyless society while Marxism is mostly about laborers owning their labor. I suggest you reading some of the Marx and/or Engel's work.
// , “It is not so important to be serious as it is to be serious about the important things. The monkey wears an expression of seriousness... but the monkey is serious because he itches."(No/No)
I have read some of Marx's work, and the history of the twentieth century should tell any of us all we need to know about the impact of seductive, single factor explanations of class or group conflict, and Marx's disgusting legacy.
For anyone who wants to know how ideas like Marxism turn into horrors like the Soviets, the Chinese Communist Party, the Khmer Rouge, North Korea, and Venezuela, I recommend the following book:
My name is Matteo and I'm a cloud solution architect and tech enthusiast. In my spare time, I work on open source software as much as I can. I simply enjoy writing software that is actually useful.
The "never use it" is there to light up the flame. And it worked apparently. I don't give a dam if you love gpl, use it and I'm ready to die to defend your right to use it. The whole article is just a giant pretext to discuss the theme.
That's, of course, assuming the false dichtomy of "communism vs. pseudocapitalism", or "proprietary vs. GPL". It also assumes that the closed-source companies are mostly mustache twirling villains looking to make a dollar by any means necessary...which is true of some and not of others.
In reality, there's more complexity to it. A true free market system (ergo why I said "PSEUDO-capitalism") allows anyone to create and compete, without unfair advantage. We could (but shouldn't here) debate whether that actually exists, but that's the aim that open source and the OSI aim for. It isn't 'everyone must horde' (pseudocapitalism) nor 'everyone must forcefully share' (communism), but simply that we should be open to the idea of sharing, of building bridges.
Comparing ends, FSF and OSI are very similar. Comparing means, it's the difference between assuming the worst about people's motivations, and assuming the best. Only one of those means breeds collaboration and community.
Again, as I said in my other comment, GPL has its place. Actually, so does proprietary - it isn't always "I want to limit freedom, muahaha", it's often "there is no way to keep my company operational under an open source model." Try selling an open source game, you'll see what I mean. ;)
Not really wanting to start anything about Capitalism-Communism but just refer that comment :) I get your point. The major issue with this post is the never use it thing that I don't really share.
And I get the fact that having a company under open source is hard and sometime almost impossible. Selling a open source game is a good point. Although not as a way of living. Having an open source game is a good project for other reasons more than to monetize it.
I've been a professional C, Perl, PHP and Python developer.
I'm an ex-sysadmin from the late 20th century.
These days I do more Javascript and CSS and whatnot, and promote UX and accessibility.
Yes, it's a problem that the post says that "free" should mean the freedom to be non-free, and yet discourages the idea that I should be free to use GPL, entirely from a moral stance.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I think most of your post goes around the fact that the license "limits the freedom of others"
Others that want free software in their proprietary. That actually makes me feel like when fascists asks for tolerance.
Tolerance required intolerance to the intolerance. I feel kind of the same with free software. And as other people stated. It was totally needed for open source to be a thing.
I think the person that publish its software under the GPL license doesn't want a company using their code and keeping it for themselves. It's so much better if a developer can use it, make it better and keep sharing it and continuing...
But that's my 2 cents.
Yeah like in capitalism we have a bunch of people climbing with only 1% of people having most of the money in the world :P
Need to say some stuff
1- "Open Source" is just a market term that is promoted and funded by corporations to erase the historic and avant-garde importance of free software movement, which consists the permissive licenses that this person claims to be different.
2- Freedom that limits the freedom isn't freedom. Opening your software for proprietary usage does that. Its like having the freedom of slavery.
3- You lack basic info regarding Marxism. Communism doesn't have anything to do "being at the bottom of the pit". That is a meaningless bs mostly said by people like Thatcher and Reagan, politicians famous for austerity, corruption and economic crisis afterwards. Communism is the name of stateless, classless, moneyless society while Marxism is mostly about laborers owning their labor. I suggest you reading some of the Marx and/or Engel's work.
I have read some of Marx's work, and the history of the twentieth century should tell any of us all we need to know about the impact of seductive, single factor explanations of class or group conflict, and Marx's disgusting legacy.
For anyone who wants to know how ideas like Marxism turn into horrors like the Soviets, the Chinese Communist Party, the Khmer Rouge, North Korea, and Venezuela, I recommend the following book:
amazon.com/Archipelago-Peterson-in...
The patterns are consistent enough for an easy comparison.
The "never use it" is there to light up the flame. And it worked apparently. I don't give a dam if you love gpl, use it and I'm ready to die to defend your right to use it. The whole article is just a giant pretext to discuss the theme.
Your damn clickbait technics!!! Yeah I can't deny it worked 🔥🔥🔥
That's, of course, assuming the false dichtomy of "communism vs. pseudocapitalism", or "proprietary vs. GPL". It also assumes that the closed-source companies are mostly mustache twirling villains looking to make a dollar by any means necessary...which is true of some and not of others.
In reality, there's more complexity to it. A true free market system (ergo why I said "PSEUDO-capitalism") allows anyone to create and compete, without unfair advantage. We could (but shouldn't here) debate whether that actually exists, but that's the aim that open source and the OSI aim for. It isn't 'everyone must horde' (pseudocapitalism) nor 'everyone must forcefully share' (communism), but simply that we should be open to the idea of sharing, of building bridges.
Comparing ends, FSF and OSI are very similar. Comparing means, it's the difference between assuming the worst about people's motivations, and assuming the best. Only one of those means breeds collaboration and community.
Again, as I said in my other comment, GPL has its place. Actually, so does proprietary - it isn't always "I want to limit freedom, muahaha", it's often "there is no way to keep my company operational under an open source model." Try selling an open source game, you'll see what I mean. ;)
Not really wanting to start anything about Capitalism-Communism but just refer that comment :) I get your point. The major issue with this post is the
never use itthing that I don't really share.And I get the fact that having a company under open source is hard and sometime almost impossible. Selling a open source game is a good point. Although not as a way of living. Having an open source game is a good project for other reasons more than to monetize it.
Yeah, "never use it" is overkill, but the arguments are ones that we've needed brought out in the open for a while.
Yes, it's a problem that the post says that "free" should mean the freedom to be non-free, and yet discourages the idea that I should be free to use GPL, entirely from a moral stance.